Cities and the Environment (CATE) Volume 4 | Issue 1 Article 2 7-20-2011 Eastern Coyote/Coywolf (Canis latrans x lycaon) Movement Patterns: Lessons Learned in Urbanized Ecosystems Jonathan G. Way Eastern Coyote Research, [email protected] Recommended Citation Way, Jonathan G. (2011) "Eastern Coyote/Coywolf (Canis latrans x lycaon) Movement Patterns: Lessons Learned in Urbanized Ecosystems," Cities and the Environment (CATE): Vol. 4: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol4/iss1/2 This Special Topic Article: Urban Wildlife is brought to you for free and open access by the Biology at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cities and the Environment (CATE) by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Eastern Coyote/Coywolf (Canis latrans x lycaon) Movement Patterns: Lessons Learned in Urbanized Ecosystems Activity and movement patterns represent a fundamental aspect of a species natural history. Twenty four-hour movements of eastern coyotes or coywolves (Canis latrans x lycaon; hereafter eastern coyote for consistency purposes) ranged up to 31.9 linear km and averaged 23.5 + 7.3 (SD) km from 5-14 radio-fixes during each 24 hr monitoring period. Coyotes moved mostly at night and through altered open areas (e.g., powerlines, dumps) more than expected when compared to residential and natural areas. Coyotes inhabiting urbanized areas generally use residential areas for traveling and/or foraging. With large daily (or more aptly, nightly) movement patterns, resident coyotes can potentially be located anywhere within their large home ranges at any given time, as data revealed that one pack (3-4 individuals) can cover a combined 75-100 km per night, in a territory averaging 20-30 km2. Transient movements from capture location to end location varied from 23.0—100.5 km and averaged 63.8 km for two females and 49.3 km for four males. Eastern coyotes travel long distances even in human-dominated areas, allowing transients to find av cant territories. Because of their ability to move through urban areas and to colonize and recolonize areas, management efforts should focus more on educating the public about actual coyote behavior and their life history needs than on killing them. Keywords Canis latrans x lycaon, coexistence, coyote, coywolf, eastern coyote, education, movements, non-lethal management, territoriality. Acknowledgements I thank my family, especially my wife Tara, for supporting me while writing this paper. Proceeds from my book Suburban Howls and donations to my website (www.EasternCoyoteResearch.com) partially financially supported this research. I thank B.R. Patterson for his important work with canids and for commenting on a previous draft of this manuscript. The dda itional suggestions of two anonymous reviewers improved this paper. This special topic article: urban wildlife is available in Cities and the Environment (CATE): http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/ vol4/iss1/2 Way: Eastern coyote/coywolf movements INTRODUCTION Movement patterns represent a basic characteristic of the ecology of a species, and affect home ranges and territory sizes, habitat use, dispersal, corridor use, and population density (Patterson et al. 1999, Patterson and Messier 2001, Way et al. 2002a, Way et al. 2004, Way and Eatough 2006). In urban areas it is vital to know when a predator is active and where it moves, especially in relation to human activity, as this knowledge could potentially lead to the development of management strategies to reduce conflicts with humans. Additionally, studying predators in urbanized areas provides baseline data to inform residents of how species (e.g., coyotes [Canis latrans] nationwide, cougars [Puma concolor] in California) behave in human-dominated environments (Beier 1993, 1995; Way 2001, 2002a). Movements of coyotes have been documented in rural/forested areas (Patterson et al. 1999), agricultural landscapes (Person 1988), and urbanized areas (Way et al. 2004, Way 2007a). Coyotes have also been documented to travel across seemingly disparate areas, such as wide canals (Way 2002), bridges (Way 2009), islands (Thomas and Dibblee 1986), and on drifting pack ice (Chubbs and Phillips 2002). Documenting the movement of transient coyotes in urbanized areas enables managers to compare how they move in these landscapes compared to more rural environs (e.g., Gese et al. 1996, Harrison 1992, Way 2007a), which could have practical implications. For example, if transient coyotes do not move far distances in urbanized locales (because of high road density) then localized control efforts may be more successful in reducing coyote numbers in those regions; conversely, if the opposite is true (i.e., coyotes move similar distances in urban and rural areas), then control efforts would likely be less successful, unless targeting a specific individual(s). Here, I review and synthesize a decade of research that has taken place in eastern Massachusetts as a case study for lessons learned while studying eastern coyotes (coywolves) in urbanized areas (papers most relevant to this discussion are Way et al. 2002, Way et al. 2004, Way and Eatough 2006, Way 2007a, Way 2009). I will detail relevant findings and potential management opportunities for managing canids on our landscapes, ranging from rural and wilderness to urban. METHODS USED TO STUDY EASTERN COYOTES 1998-2008 Recent genetic research on eastern coyotes indicates that they are actually a hybrid between western coyotes and eastern/red wolves (Canis rufus/lycaon; Wilson et al. 2000) and could be called coywolves (Canis latrans x lyacon) since they are larger than western coyotes (Way 2007b) and genetically distinct from both western coyotes and eastern/red wolves (Way et al. 2010). However, for consistency purposes (and because of the continued controversy surrounding the genetic nature of this animal) I will retain its original nomenclature of eastern coyote, or simply coyote, throughout this manuscript. Nevertheless, the eastern coyote is a successful and widespread hybrid canid living throughout northeastern North America (east of 80° longitude, and south of Algonquin Provincial Park, Ontario), similar to the western coyote found throughout most of the rest of the continent (Parker 1995). Published by Digital Commons at Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School, 2011 1 Cities and the Environment (CATE), Vol. 4 [2011], Iss. 1, Art. 2 Study Sites This research took place in two urbanized locations from 1998-2008: Cape Cod and the towns and cities north of Boston. Most research conducted on the heavily urban north edge of Boston (~100-150 km2; 42.43°, 71.06°) took place in the cities of Revere (3089 people/km2, housing density = 1318/km²), Everett (4345 people/km2, housing density = 1817/km²), and Malden (4291 people/km2, housing density = 1800/km²) (U. S. Census Bureau 2000 estimates). The area is characterized by high density housing with small woodland areas or open space such as cemeteries non-strategically situated in towns and cities. Coyotes were captured and spent most of their time in these wooded, green areas as the high density housing areas were often fenced and provided nowhere for coyotes to travel, except for main roads (Way and Eatough 2006). Railroad tracks and holes in some of the fences provided small corridors between some of the green areas (Way and Eatough 2006). Research on Cape Cod was conducted within Barnstable County, Massachusetts (approximate study area 250 km2) with a concentration in the town of Barnstable (41.67°, 70.28°; land area=155.5 km2). Human population density in the town of Barnstable was 308 people/km2 and housing density was 161/km2, while the entire Barnstable County (1024 km2) averaged 217 people/km2 and 144 houses/km2 (U. S. Census Bureau 2000 estimates). The town/city of Barnstable has a distinct rural-urban gradient within its borders; the highest and lowest densities of people were found in urban Hyannis (556 people/km2, housing units = 328/km2) and rural West Barnstable (89/km2, housing units = 39/km2) (Cape Cod Commission 1998). Road density, defined as centerline km of roadway per km2, was 4.7 for the town of Barnstable and 4.0 for Barnstable County (Cape Cod Commission 1998). Cape Cod is characterized by being residential as well as having numerous small (5-10 ha) and a few large (~1000 ha) conservation areas interspersed throughout. Most of the neighborhoods are not fenced, however, and coyotes were readily able to travel through these areas to access various portions of their home range (Way et al. 2004). Eastern coyote pack territories were roughly 20- 30 km2 and were non-overlapping, similar to more rural areas (Patterson and Messier 2001, Way et al. 2002a), which are bigger than western coyote territories (Andelt 1985, Gehrt et al. 2009, Gese et al. 1996). Capture Techniques Eastern coyotes were captured by box trap (Way et al. 2002b) then radio-collared or radio- implanted (juveniles – i.e., pups of the year) using Telonics, Inc. (Mesa, Arizona) transmitters, aged based on tooth wear (Bowen 1982; Landon et al. 1998), weighed, blood drawn (ca. 4 cc), then released. Residents were classified as adults, yearlings, and juveniles that lived within a territorial boundary and were part of a pair (excluding juveniles) or pack. Transients (or nomads) were classified as individuals who had no discernable